[LogoForum] Re: How can I shrink/grow squares in mswlogo

The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
LogoForum. The original author of this message is
gene_sullivan@yahoo.nospam.com.



--- In LogoForum@yahoogroups.com, Pavel Boytchev <pavel@...> wrote:
>
> logo_programmer wrote:
> > It makes a hell of lot more sense to present
> > algorithms and the data stuctures they are used
> > by/with togeher as a synergy
>
>
> This reminds me of a book by Niklaus Wirth:
>
>
> "Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs"

Yea. I had Pascal foisted upon me in college.

I am NOT a fan of Niklaus Wirth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth

I am not a fan of many MBTI J-types who favor
early binding languages or who favor the `Cathedral'
style of programming, which I consider Wirth to approximate.
{ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar}

The beauty of Lisp -- from which both Logo and Scheme
were derived -- is that Algorithms == Data.
To portray or assert "Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs"
is to promote a false premise via a false dichotomy.
Even the early implementers of Lisp -- who should have known
better -- screwed up ... by implementing two names spaces:
one for `functions'/algorithms and one for data structures.
Scheme did a better job of it by manifesting one name space and
one means for `defining'/associating/binding regardless of whether
one is reifying the hallucination of an `Algorithm' or `Data Structure'.

That Logo has a `run' procedure and scheme and lisp have `eval' is
a credit to those who refuse to honor the spurious distinction
between Algorithms and Data -- dynamic processes and would-be-static
`things' -- as well as some of the better therapists who knew/know
how to `denominalize' `things' back into Processes pursuant to
promoting better thinking, feeling/emoting, and acting.

Anyway ... A dyed-in-the-wool Logo, Scheme, or Lisp enthusiast
might want to dig up that book and browse through it ...just to
see how far afield people can get with false dichotomies
and `fixedness'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness

Hmmmm ... how does one do late binding or lazy binding with
any of Wirth's creations? And how many of them employ
continuations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation

And how many of his creations allow weak typing or Just-in-Time
typing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_typing

Yea, I remember Pascal. Though not very fondly.

Cheers!
Gene

>

__._,_.___
LogoForum messages are archived at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum